Re: [RFC PATCH 03/10] ftrace: Drop the ftrace_profile_enabledchecks in tracing hot path

From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Fri Jan 22 2010 - 07:35:02 EST


* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 23:09 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, interesting. Maybe something like that might work. But what if
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT is enabled but CONFIG_FREEZER is not?
> >
> > Then you may want to make the function tracer depend on CONFIG_FREEZER,
> > but maybe Masami has other ideas ?
>
> egad no! This is just to help add guarantees to those that use the
> function tracer that when the tracing is disabled, it is guaranteed that
> no more tracing will be called by the function tracer. Currently,
> nothing relies on this. But we may add cases that might need this.

Yep, identifying tracer quiescent state can become handy.

>
> In fact, only those that need this requirement would need to do this
> trick. Anyway, we could make those depend on CONFIG_FREEZER, but that
> just seems to be a strange dependency.

This makes me wonder (question for Masami)...

static int __kprobes check_safety(void)
{
int ret = 0;
#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && defined(CONFIG_FREEZER)
ret = freeze_processes();
if (ret == 0) {
struct task_struct *p, *q;
do_each_thread(p, q) {
if (p != current && p->state == TASK_RUNNING &&
p->pid != 0) {
printk("Check failed: %s is running\n",p->comm);
ret = -1;
goto loop_end;
}
} while_each_thread(p, q);
}
loop_end:
thaw_processes();
#else
synchronize_sched();
#endif
return ret;
}

How does that deal with CONFIG_PREEMPT && !CONFIG_FREEZER exactly ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> -- Steve
>
>

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/